Summary of Argument

Amici write in support of Respondent-Appellant’s argument that rulings on discretionary transfers from juvenile to adult criminal court are subject to immediate appeal. Respondent-Appellant persuasively argues that, based on the legislative history and a reading of the juvenile transfer statute as a whole, the legislature intended that such decisions be susceptible to interlocutory appeal. Amici herein present further argument in support of Respondent-Appellant’s additional position that recent United States Supreme Court holdings adopting current knowledge of adolescent development -- and its applicability to youth involved with the courts -- warrants a revisiting of this court’s earlier, now discredited holding that youth do not suffer great and irreparable harm when they are forced to await a final judgment in adult court before they can challenge the transfer ruling. In re Juvenile Appeal, 195 Conn. 303, 312-13 (1985).

Summary of Argument

Amici curiae file this brief in support of Respondent-Appellant’s argument advocating for the immediate appealability of discretionary transfers from juvenile to adult criminal court. Respondent-Appellant argues that the legislative history and a comprehensive analysis of the juvenile transfer statute demonstrate the legislature’s intent to allow for interlocutory appeals of such decisions. This brief presents further arguments in support of Respondent-Appellant’s contention that recent United States Supreme Court rulings, informed by contemporary understanding of adolescent development and its implications for youth within the legal system, necessitates a reevaluation of this court’s prior holding, now regarded as outdated, that youth do not experience significant and irreparable harm when compelled to await a final judgment in adult court before challenging the transfer ruling. In re Juvenile Appeal, 195 Conn. 303, 312-13 (1985).

Summary of Argument

The amici curiae (“friends of the court”) support the Respondent-Appellant’s argument that rulings on discretionary transfers from juvenile to adult criminal court are immediately appealable. The Respondent-Appellant asserts that legislative history and the juvenile transfer statute demonstrate the legislature’s intent for these rulings to be subject to interlocutory appeal. The amici support the Respondent-Appellant’s argument that recent Supreme Court rulings recognizing the developmental differences between adolescents and adults should prompt the court to reconsider its prior holding that youth do not suffer irreparable harm when forced to await a final judgment in adult court before challenging a transfer ruling.

Summary of Argument

The legal team supporting the Respondent-Appellant argues that decisions to transfer juvenile cases to adult criminal court should be able to be appealed immediately. They claim that the law intended for these decisions to be reviewed before a final judgment is made.

The team also points to recent Supreme Court decisions that acknowledge the unique developmental needs of teenagers. These decisions emphasize that young people may be unfairly disadvantaged if they are forced to wait until after a trial in adult court to challenge a transfer decision. This contradicts an earlier ruling from this court that claimed youth don't experience significant harm if they have to wait until after a trial to fight a transfer.

Summary of Argument

People who support the teenager in this case say that the court should let them appeal the decision to move their case from juvenile court to adult court right away. They say that the law meant for these decisions to be able to be appealed early. They also say that recent Supreme Court cases show that young people’s brains are still developing, and they should be able to appeal this decision before they are forced to wait for a final decision in adult court.